Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Why do Communists confuse themselves with anarchists?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't think I did support his point becuase when I point out that the USSR, China, North Korea etc etc are all communist inspired dictatorships commies try and wriggle out of it highlight the apparent 'stateless' nature of their ideology. This has given them an enternal get out of jail free card that prevents the hard left from coming to terms with what they really advocate: an all powerful Orwellian superstate that has scant regard for human rights.

    May as well say that the Weimar's effort for Democracy makes all current Democrats evil fascists whose only desire is world domination..

    Your multitudinous association (and dissociation) between 'communists' and the hard left misconstrues your argument's direction.. if there is one.

    Interpretation of ideology by a 'state', or 'superstate' (such as your examples), already contradicts the original subscript. Look at China.. it lives and breathes a capitalist economy and has produced an authoritarian government, yet you still claim the 'stateless' communist ideal as being the same evil.

    But in all honesty, its just a constant citation of political 'buzzwords'.. that, unfortunately, has made its way from America over the pond.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't think I did support his point becuase when I point out that the USSR, China, North Korea etc etc are all communist inspired dictatorships commies try and wriggle out of it highlight the apparent 'stateless' nature of their ideology. This has given them an enternal get out of jail free card that prevents the hard left from coming to terms with what they really advocate: an all powerful Orwellian superstate that has scant regard for human rights.
    I think 'commies' who try and wriggle out of it are just squirming in the face of what they consider to be a duty to make everyone happy, when really we should not even care to do so. Communist doctrine, less so in the more rational versions of modern China, mandates massive state expansion to enforce the needs of all against the needs of the few, and any communist who imagines we can all hold hands and become one without doing that is living in goo goo land frankly. There can be no top down changing of society without a great deal of upheaval and force.

    I would also, on a more nitpicky note, point out to you that North Korea, erstwhile held up as the best example of why Communism is so evil, in 2009 in their revised constitution removed all references to communism out of their constitution, in favour of the Juche and Songun ideas and of course, the Kim family. As is, North Korea is effectively a monarchy with a Communist poster roughly drawn on the front for the sake of the nostalgia of Kim Il Sung's revolutionary days, and even the Chinese are frankly largely sick of North Korea, putting up with them only because the DPRK is preferable to Americans on the Yalu, and the influx of refugees.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It all sounds a bit biblical to me with different factions fighting over the true meaning of God's Marx's words. Perhaps this is why commies are trigger happy when it comes to employing the old..."but we're misunderstood" line, he was such a prolofic writer you could use his work to justify almost any political idelogy. I've even seen excepts of Das Capital that openly support the Georgist critique of the capitalist economy, but Marx and George were at loggerheads when they were alive!
    Oh, definitely, there's some of that. Marx was incredibly vague when talking about socialism or communism, he wrote about a page of it in total. That's why I think Marxism is better described as a critique of economics, philosophy and history than a political ideology. It's descriptive rather than prescriptive.

    Though it's worth noting that when the Bolsheviks came to power in the October 1917 coup, they abolished all of the socialist movements and institutions that had appeared during the revolution. Lenin and Trotsky thought that Russia 'wasn't ready for socialism' (in my opinion, this is a stupid view) and that they should just basically sit around so that they could promote the revolution in an industrialised country, Germany, that they thought would inevitably come. Which it did. But it failed, it was crushed by the fascist Friekorps troops, and the Bolsheviks now found themselves with a largely unindustrialised Russia that they'd never really wanted to start with. Which is when Lenin brought in the NEP, or as he called it, 'state capitalism'.
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigyouth)
    May as well say that the Weimar's effort for Democracy makes all current Democrats evil fascists whose only desire is world domination..

    Your multitudinous association (and dissociation) between 'communists' and the hard left misconstrues your argument's direction.. if there is one.

    Interpretation of ideology by a 'state', or 'superstate' (such as your examples), already contradicts the original subscript. Look at China.. it lives and breathes a capitalist economy and has produced an authoritarian government, yet you still claim the 'stateless' communist ideal as being the same evil.

    But in all honesty, its just a constant citation of political 'buzzwords'.. that, unfortunately, has made its way from America over the pond.

    I'm dismayed by the way communists attempt to distance themselves from the dictatorial aspect of their ideology by parading their supposed end goal.

    If a team of builders believed that their new flawless design would put an end to housing poverty but everytime they laid the foundations it killed half the workforce would they be responsible for the death and destruction? The communist answer is no because the project collapsed before they were able to fully test their plans. The real world answer is they're a bunch of incompetents who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a building site.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NietzschanGuy)
    I think 'commies' who try and wriggle out of it are just squirming in the face of what they consider to be a duty to make everyone happy, when really we should not even care to do so. Communist doctrine, less so in the more rational versions of modern China, mandates massive state expansion to enforce the needs of all against the needs of the few, and any communist who imagines we can all hold hands and become one without doing that is living in goo goo land frankly. There can be no top down changing of society without a great deal of upheaval and force.

    I would also, on a more nitpicky note, point out to you that North Korea, erstwhile held up as the best example of why Communism is so evil, in 2009 in their revised constitution removed all references to communism out of their constitution, in favour of the Juche and Songun ideas and of course, the Kim family. As is, North Korea is effectively a monarchy with a Communist poster roughly drawn on the front for the sake of the nostalgia of Kim Il Sung's revolutionary days, and even the Chinese are frankly largely sick of North Korea, putting up with them only because the DPRK is preferable to Americans on the Yalu, and the influx of refugees.
    the problem with china is that the population think they are socialist (because the state teaches them that socialism is half way between communism and capitalism .... hurr durr) and that society's outlook, especially in large cities aside from the capital. Like how the stereotype of Japanese society is uniform, eveyone fits in, looks the same, should respect authority and work in the city = success, and we all know Japan has serious societal flaws regarding expresion within institutions, of all kinds.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Look I am exactly the opposite of a communist but that's silly, I don't actually agree entirely with chef here but Communism is different to anarchism is one simple way, Communists, once a violent revolution has suceeded, wish to install complete state control at the hand of the proletariat (vanguards)
    Not at all. As I said, both Marx and Engels envisaged something like the Paris Commune (except obviously not getting slaughtered by the state armies)

    Stalin advocated communism in one country but wished to keep state control completely with no disolvement.
    Actually he advocated 'socialism in one country' - but either way, that's no more possible than it's possible to have 'capitalism in one country' - the whole idea makes no sense.

    They wish to just go straight to a stateless, moneyless society.
    Only anarcho-communists oppose money. Plenty of anarchists are fine with it.

    The other difference is that under this, beacuse there was no dictatorship, communes are not the only form of society available. Under initial anarchist stateless(ism), you can operate collectives, co-ops, gift economies, Mutual aid economies and council communes, aswell as communes.
    Right so far.

    Anarcho-communists fuse communism and anarchism by wishing to solely establish communes but without a dictatorship to start, mutual aid and co-ops are not allowed, no market mechanisms are also allowed (an anarchist free market).
    Where do you get this from? Anarcho-communists don't want to prevent these things, they just don't think they're good ways of running a society or that they'd likely exist on a large scale without a state

    Kropotkin baically said if you do not work within the commune you should be exiled and/or you should recieve no mutual aid, you have to be a worker.
    Apart from the exiled bit, which he Kropotkin never said, this is just common sense really, isn't it? If you don't want to work in the commune, you don't get any potential benefits from the commune. There doesn't seem anything wrong with that to me.

    anarcho-communists do not advocate co-ops or mutual aid.
    Considering one of the most influential books on anarcho-communism is Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, I think it's a bit ridiculous to say anarcho-communists don't advocate mutual aid.

    Not a bad effort at getting through the mess though.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Oh, definitely, there's some of that. Marx was incredibly vague when talking about socialism or communism, he wrote about a page of it in total. That's why I think Marxism is better described as a critique of economics, philosophy and history than a political ideology. It's descriptive rather than prescriptive.

    Though it's worth noting that when the Bolsheviks came to power in the October 1917 coup, they abolished all of the socialist movements and institutions that had appeared during the revolution. Lenin and Trotsky thought that Russia 'wasn't ready for socialism' (in my opinion, this is a stupid view) and that they should just basically sit around so that they could promote the revolution in an industrialised country, Germany, that they thought would inevitably come. Which it did. But it failed, it was crushed by the fascist Friekorps troops, and the Bolsheviks now found themselves with a largely unindustrialised Russia that they'd never really wanted to start with. Which is when Lenin brought in the NEP, or as he called it, 'state capitalism'.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism

    Only marxists think state socialism doesn't exist, and its actually state capitalism. Its pure denial, like how you get thrown out of marxist lectures when you point out "but what happens, once they are in power, what happens if they want to keep it or it is impossible to dissolve". haha

    And you aren't a marxist.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    the problem with china is that the population think they are socialist (because the state teaches them that socialism is half way between communism and capitalism .... hurr durr) and that society's outlook, especially in large cities aside from the capital. Like how the stereotype of Japanese society is uniform, eveyone fits in, looks the same, should respect authority and work in the city = success, and we all know Japan has serious societal flaws regarding expresion within institutions, of all kinds.
    Well, in terms of Marxist theory socialism is the halfway point, what is commonly referred to now as State Capitalism I believe. Marx's theory was that one would have to adopt socialism prior to outright Communism, and China's state aim as far as I am aware is to have a communist society in place by 2049.

    There is certainly something in the argument regarding uniformity though, hence I much prefer Deng Xiaoping's socialism to that of Mao, since China allows a much greater degree of personal freedom in exchange for total political dictation, which to me is much closer to the ideal state of affairs than anything the USSR and it's kin achieved, although I'm not too comfortable with internet policing, much though I understand the necessity of it.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not at all. As I said, both Marx and Engels envisaged something like the Paris Commune (except obviously not getting slaughtered by the state armies)



    Actually he advocated 'socialism in one country' - but either way, that's no more possible than it's possible to have 'capitalism in one country' - the whole idea makes no sense.



    Only anarcho-communists oppose money. Plenty of anarchists are fine with it.



    Right so far.



    Where do you get this from? Anarcho-communists don't want to prevent these things, they just don't think they're good ways of running a society or that they'd likely exist on a large scale without a state



    Apart from the exiled bit, which he Kropotkin never said, this is just common sense really, isn't it? If you don't want to work in the commune, you don't get any potential benefits from the commune. There doesn't seem anything wrong with that to me.



    Considering one of the most influential books on anarcho-communism is Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, I think it's a bit ridiculous to say anarcho-communists don't advocate mutual aid.

    Not a bad effort at getting through the mess though.
    From the anarcho communists I've spoken to (just 2 hah) they don't seem to think of mutual aid in the same way proudhon does nor the post-proudhon 'social' anarchists, of all stripes, aside from, anarcho commys ... of course haha
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Apart from the exiled bit, which he Kropotkin never said, this is just common sense really, isn't it? If you don't want to work in the commune, you don't get any potential benefits from the commune. There doesn't seem anything wrong with that to me.
    A bit OT but what you're describing is effectively a micro-state: a body of rules that are implented by force over a given area is the very embodiment of statehood. We could give it a different label based on it's size and the theories that underpin it but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck the chances are it's a duck.

    Without a solid grasp of the land issue most proponents of communism/socialism/anarchism etc etc end up going around in circles and advocating the very things they're seeking to avoid. It's quite amusing really.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not at all. On the contrary, capitalism is very much a creature of the state. The state is necessary for capitalism to exist.



    The government not spending money doesn't mean it's not involved. The government props up the whole capitalist system. The cuts that anarchists oppose are generally the proposed cuts of social welfare - the things that have been won by popular struggle against the state and capitalism.
    Ummm, capitalism is the freedom to by and sell stuff. It does not need the state to function (though often the state can improve its outcomes) It's what happens by default (even in communist countries where it is forbidden)

    As for social welfare being won 'against' the state, could you perhaps give an example? Because every example I know has been initiated by politicians and civil servants, ie the state.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    Because TSR is full of naive teenagers.

    communism = left wing
    anarachism = left wing
    communism = anarchism

    The sheeple you speak of don't know what they want, whatever the Guardian tells them is best I guess (and I say this as an openly left wing Guardian reader).
    I read the Guardian, and I think you're giving it too much credit. I think rather that both cases are just examples of people who are either angry teenagers (see 'anarchists' at every major protest) or people who never grew out of that mentality.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    From the anarcho communists I've spoken to (just 2 hah) they don't seem to think of mutual aid in the same way proudhon does nor the post-proudhon 'social' anarchists, of all stripes, aside from, anarcho commys ... of course haha
    You're probably right.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    A bit OT but what you're describing is effectively a micro-state: a body of rules that are implented by force over a given area is the very embodiment of statehood. We could give it a different label based on it's size and the theories that underpin it but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck the chances are it's a duck.
    So tell me where the force or given area is in a commune?

    Communes, co-ops, collectives etc as advocated by anarchists are essentially like members' clubs. You are not forced to be in one or the other, or be in one at all. Nor are they obliged to accept anyone who wants to join, as it's a horizontal and voluntary association. As such, they don't have a 'land area' - there's a good chance towns would form communes, but also a good chance not everyone in the town would want to be in the commune.

    Without a solid grasp of the land issue most proponents of communism/socialism/anarchism etc etc end up going around in circles and advocating the very things they're seeking to avoid. It's quite amusing really.
    No, they generally do nothing of the sort. But quite often there's someone like you insisting that they actually advocate something that they don't.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Ummm, capitalism is the freedom to by and sell stuff.
    No, in pretty much every system you can buy and sell stuff. Capitalism is about a market economy and private property in the means of production (it's very important you fully understand the latter part here - it includes the power to take part of a worker's product in wage labour).

    It does not need the state to function
    Find me a stateless capitalist society then.

    It's what happens by default
    On the contrary - practically every example of a stateless society in history has been a socialist or communist one.

    Also, I'd advise you take a look at this:
    http://mutualist.org/id4.html

    As for social welfare being won 'against' the state, could you perhaps give an example? Because every example I know has been initiated by politicians and civil servants, ie the state.
    Certainly - the Civil Rights struggle in the US, where activists won blacks better education provided by the state.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Ummm, capitalism is the freedom to by and sell stuff. It does not need the state to function (though often the state can improve its outcomes) It's what happens by default (even in communist countries where it is forbidden)

    As for social welfare being won 'against' the state, could you perhaps give an example? Because every example I know has been initiated by politicians and civil servants, ie the state.
    That's a market.
    • Thread Starter
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Communes, co-ops, collectives etc as advocated by anarchists are essentially like members' clubs. You are not forced to be in one or the other, or be in one at all. Nor are they obliged to accept anyone who wants to join, as it's a horizontal and voluntary association. As such, they don't have a 'land area' - there's a good chance towns would form communes, but also a good chance not everyone in the town would want to be in the commune.

    So in theory 10-20 people living in different countries could form an international commune without even meeting each other? Don't be daft. What you're describing is a civil voluntary association like the scouts or the freemasons, not a traditional commune.


    No, they generally do nothing of the sort. But quite often there's someone like you insisting that they actually advocate something that they don't.
    Not really. Most ideologues believe that if they just ignore the land issue it ceases to be relevent, so they file it away under 'dealt with' and then proceed with the important business of promoting their particular (flawed, imo) 'ism'. Without an understanding of the political relationship between man and his environment most belief systems are meaningless. Don't shoot the messenger, as they say.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NietzschanGuy)
    Well, in terms of Marxist theory socialism is the halfway point, what is commonly referred to now as State Capitalism I believe. Marx's theory was that one would have to adopt socialism prior to outright Communism, and China's state aim as far as I am aware is to have a communist society in place by 2049.
    .
    Socialism is not halfway between capitalism and communism at all, some 'tarted 15 year old on yahoo answers probably get a 100% answer score probably thinks so, but it isn't.

    State capitalism can most easily be identified by corporate America, 90's Japan and China.

    I had no idea china were going for this, are they barking mad? I think the high political elite really think they were, are, and can achieve communism, they are immensly deluded. If anything, the officials that have their heads screwed on reyt are saying they would like to see how Hong Kong (which they china are now ruining) works out and that which side is more successful of the "2 systems one nation" motto will be the one they strive for.

    Marx didn't say you adopt communism, marx thought a socialist (completely state run, nationised indutry in marxism) economy (which included politicism) would desolve into communism. He advocated [I]state socialism[/I before anything else, only marxists try to deny state socialism and state capitalism are the same thing.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    So in theory 10-20 people living in different countries could form an international commune without even meeting each other? Don't be daft.
    You've just said it yourself. In theory, yes. In practice, no, of course not.


    What you're describing is a civil voluntary association like the scouts or the freemasons, not a traditional commune.
    What is, in your mind, a 'traditional commune', then?

    In the Spanish Civil War there were communes in Catalonia, and there were indeed cases of communes generally encompassing a town, but individual areas and even individual houses of the town were not part of the commune.

    Not really. Most ideologues believe that if they just ignore the land issue it ceases to be relevent, so they file it away under 'dealt with' and then proceed with the important business of promoting their particular (flawed, imo) 'ism'. Without an understanding of the political relationship between man and his environment most belief systems are meaningless. Don't shoot the messenger, as they say.
    Please elaborate on the land issue and anarchists' supposed problems with it then.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Marx didn't say you adopt communism, marx thought a socialist (completely state run, nationised indutry in marxism) economy (which included politicism) would desolve into communism. He advocated state socialism before anything else, only marxists try to deny state socialism and state capitalism are the same thing.
    Please find me where Marx described socialism as a 'completely state run, nationised industry'. Marx didn't describe socialism at all, really. As for 'state socialism', he rejected the concept (see Critique of the Gotha Program for just one example). The idea that Marx supported 'state socialism' or a 'workers' state' originated with Bakunin who, while being brilliant most of the time, never offered a single quote by Marx to back up his criticism.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Socialism is not halfway between capitalism and communism at all, some 'tarted 15 year old on yahoo answers probably get a 100% answer score probably thinks so, but it isn't.

    State capitalism can most easily be identified by corporate America, 90's Japan and China.

    I had no idea china were going for this, are they barking mad? I think the high political elite really think they were, are, and can achieve communism, they are immensly deluded. If anything, the officials that have their heads screwed on reyt are saying they would like to see how Hong Kong (which they china are now ruining) works out and that which side is more successful of the "2 systems one nation" motto will be the one they strive for.

    Marx didn't say you adopt communism, marx thought a socialist (completely state run, nationised indutry in marxism) economy (which included politicism) would desolve into communism. He advocated [I]state socialism[/I before anything else, only marxists try to deny state socialism and state capitalism are the same thing.
    Well aren't we a flower of civility. It was my understanding based on what we covered in Sociology that the Marxist theory was that one would begin with Feudalism (Middle Ages), progress to Capitalism (Industrial Revolution), then move into Socialism (nationalisation of all industry under the full control of the state and continued development at a steady pace), followed finally by Communism (A classless, equal society). If this is not how the Marxist theory works I'd be glad to be given reference to the contrary, as opposed to some petty comment implying myself being some form of idiot.

    I'm also not sure why you seem to be suggesting I believed state socialism and state capitalism are not the same thing. I already stated I both readily accept and embrace it as by far the best direction Marxist theory can go when applied to economics. Capitalism isn't a dirty thing in and of itself, the abuse of it for monopolies and oligarchies is.

    I am also unsure as to the point of your last paragraph's explanation of how Communism comes about, as I'm fairly sure that process of going from statism into communism is pretty much exactly what I said in the first place.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 20, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.